In the past few days, I've been exposed to many more of Charlie Kirk's opinions than ever before. Some I agree with, some I don't. But he knew how to debate his views. I wonder if his murderer realized his evil act would have the effect of amplifying Kirk's reach beyond anything possible before. But, back on topic...
I even can see how logical, consistent, and rational Kirk's take on "illegal [sic] immigration" was... if you start with a bad assumption.
You have to start with the communistic notion of "collective ownership" of everyone's (no longer) private property to make it make sense. You also have to start with the idea that rules which are counter to the Constitution are real laws, even though they aren't (you can debate whether that matters, but "them's the rules").
And, starting there, it does make perfect sense.
However, that's the wrong starting place. To be ethical (not just moral), you've got to start with individual rights. Always, with every topic or issue, including "immigration". You can't start with non-existent collective "rights" or imaginary political "authority".
Starting in the wrong place, with the wrong assumptions, leads you to make errors in your conclusion- to end up with the wrong position.
-
-
By the way, I recommend that entire video linked above. Thanks to the friend and reader who sent it to me.
-
Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip?
Leave a tip?
